Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions

On 3/29/07, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Merlin Moncure (mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > fwiw, I think this is a great solution...because the default behavior
> > is preserved you get through without any extra guc settings (although
> > you may want to add one anyways).
>
> I agree that the proposed solution looks good.
>
> > maybe security definer functions should raise a warning for implicit
> > PATH NONE, and possibly even deprecate that behavior and force people
> > to type it out in future (8.4+) releases.
>
> While I agree that raising a warning makes sense I don't believe it
> should be forced. There may be cases where, even in security definer
> functions, the current search_path should be used (though, of course,
> care must be taken in writing such functions).

I agree...I'm just suggesting to make you explicitly write 'PATH NONE'
for security definer functions because of the security risk...just a
thought though.

merlin